Supertech 5W-30 SL in Ford 4.2L 3757 mi.

[garyb80]

Vehicle: 2000 Ford Econoline Van ½ ton
Engine: 4.2L V6 gasoline
Oil: SuperTech 5W-30 SL
Miles on oil: 3757
Time on oil: 6 months
Miles on engine: 46,951

this sample universal averages

Al 2 4
Cr 0 1
Fe 8 18
Cu 3 6
Pb 10 6
Sn 0 1
Mo 42 66
Ni 0 1
Mn 0 0
Ag 0 0
Ti 0 0
K 0 5
B 5 38
Si 18 17
Na 0 14
Ca 1578 1977
Mg 4 183
P 786 840
Zn 953 1017
Ba 0 3

SUS Vis @ 210ºF 57.1 56-63
Flashpoint 390 >365

Blackstone’s comments: The only problem found in your oil sample – and it is a minor one – is the lead reading as the dominant wear metal. Normal lead for this sample would be 2-3 ppm. 10 ppm isn’t anything to lose sleep over. Universal averages show typical wear metals for an oil from this type of engine after about 3,400 miles run on the oil. Your oil was 3,757 miles, and we found all wear except lead, at around average levels. Air and oil filtration look okay. This was 5W-30 engine oil with no gas, or antifreeze in it. The TBN was 3.3, showing active additive remaining.

My comments: This is my wife’s kid and grocery hauler. Almost 100% of the miles put on the oil were short trips <5 miles with the engine shut off each time so a little extra bearing wear is not surprising. The six month time span is from July to December.

 

[Patman]

TooSlick will agree with me, that this oil is too thin for this engine, since the lead is higher than the iron. Going with something closer to 11 or 12 cst at 100c will do wonders for reducing your lead.

I saw this myself too, I dropped my lead down from 3.54ppm/1000 miles down to 1ppm/1000 miles when switching to a slightly thicker oil in my LT1 Firebird.

 

[garyb80]

I thought the report was just fine considering how this van is used. As far as using a thicker oil, maybe. However, the oil is very rarely ever brought up to full temp because of the short trips so the viscosity that the engine sees is usually much higher than the viscosity @ 210 deg F. I'm sure not going to get worked up over 4ppm. The way my wife and kids are on the rest of the vehicle, this engine will far outlast the rest of the van.

 

[Patman]

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the report is good, but just like I found with my own car, I think when lead is higher than iron, there is room for improvement. In my case, it was more dramatic than I thought when I went to the slightly thicker oil. (for those that don't know, I went from Schaeffer 5w30, which was 10.9cst at 100c, to GC 0w30 which is 12.2 cst at 100c)

 

[garyb80]

Are you sure it was the higher viscosity at full temp that caused the lower wear? Could it have been the lower viscosity at start up with the 0W-30?

 

[Bror Jace]

garyb80, the extra lead should not come from short trips. That usually results in higher iron showing.

But yes, pretty good report, overall.

I assume you changed the oil at the time of test? Used the same Walmart stuff?

Consider spiking this oil with 1 quart of the same brand ... but in 15W40. That should get you into the upper range of a 30 weight easily and cheaply.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Alan]

What a kick butt analysis!

A really good showing for an $.84 cent oil that was abused for 3757 miles.I think the oil is a real winner in this engine!

I kinda disagree on the higher viscosity recomendation by Patman cause these are excellent results.4 PPM over the average is nothing to worry about at all,maybe a little lead in the gas?

I am currently running Super Tech 5W30(ST3614 filter) in my 02 Sienna with the V6 "oil impaler"motor.I plan on doing an analysis at 3K.Currently has 250 miles on it.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyb80:
Are you sure it was the higher viscosity at full temp that caused the lower wear? Could it have been the lower viscosity at start up with the 0W-30?

---

I think you meant to say the lower viscosity (30 vs 40 ) at 100C. And your oil is a 5W-30 vs a 0W-30 right?? Anyway I like Bror's idea but I would start with a 10W-30 and mix in a quart of 15W-30 but at the very least a 10W-30 vs a 5W 30 would be an improvement. Don't get me wrong its a great report but you could get the lead a little lower.

We are sooooo picky

 

[garyb80]

What I meant was the 0W-30 would have a lower viscosity at startup compared to the 5W-30 (even though the GC 0W-30 has a slightly higher viscosity at operating temp than the 5W-30). That seems even more important given Patman's geography in the Great White North. A difference of about 2 cSt at 100 deg C seems trivial compared to the difference in viscocity at startup between those two oils. I was just suggesting that may be the reason for his lower wear instead of the slightly higher viscosity at higher temps.

[ January 12, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: garyb80 ]

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyb80:
What I meant was the 0W-30 would have a lower viscosity at startup compared to the 5W-30 (even though the GC 0W-30 has a slightly higher viscosity at operating temp than the 5W-30). That seems even more important given Patman's geography in the Great White North. A difference of about 2 cSt at 100 deg C seems trivial compared to the difference in viscocity at startup between those two oils. I was just suggesting that may be the reason for his lower wear instead of the slightly higher viscosity at higher temps.

---

It is true that the 0W will be a little thinner at startup. But in Patman's case he gt the better wear even with the thinner 0W (cold) oil bc the oil was thicker at 100C. But your point is valid but probably a very minor part of the big picture.

 

[garyb80]

I'm suggesting that the thinner viscosity at startup IS the reason he got lower wear, not in spite of it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Sometimes things that sound clear in my head don't come out that clear.

 

[Alan]

I'm surprised that you guys aren't more estatic about this report.All 3,757 miles were tough grocery getter miles which supposedly are very tough on the oil and it held up extremly well.

This UOA looks better then some of the synthetics UOA's I've seen on the board with split 50/50 highway miles.

 

[TR3-2001SE]

Good advise Patman!

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
TooSlick will agree with me, that this oil is too thin for this engine, since the lead is higher than the iron. Going with something closer to 11 or 12 cst at 100c will do wonders for reducing your lead.

I saw this myself too, I dropped my lead down from 3.54ppm/1000 miles down to 1ppm/1000 miles when switching to a slightly thicker oil in my LT1 Firebird.

---

Pat,
Although I agree with you on viscosity, I also believe this is a very good report! This is a big and heavy vehicle that's being pushed around by a V6.....this combo "might" put a bit more stress on the engine than other vehicles. I think I would go with the Chevron 10W-40, since most of the time it shears back to a high 30wt anyway, or maybe Delvac 1300 or another quality thicker oil.

 

[csandste]

Additive levels in ST 10w30 are often knocked for being on the low side, something I don't completely buy. The 5w30 does look skimpy in the additive department with the exception of moly, which exists in the 5w30 but not the 10w30. Wear, does look very good, however. This stuff whether 5w30 or 10w30 has performed as good as any of 'em.

It's interesting that the TBN in my Elantra with ST 10w30 was about shot at a bit more than 4K, while this stuff seems to be hanging in there. I'm rethinking 5w30 and may extend it to 9 months out of the year. I think I'm getting better mileage with it than with the heavier weight stuff, even in winter.

[ January 13, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: csandste ]

 

[Robbie Alexander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:
-*-*
We are sooooo picky

---

So true! Most people don't even do UOA's.
Numbers seem okay.
Might wanna go 10w-30 and see how well that does.
Just think about this:
the normal person who changes their oil will often change at the level stated, and don't care about UOA's and they will still easily get a couple hundred K if they kept it will little problems to the engine if any.
No, just watch the trend a couple samples

People that are hard on the engine have spikes on the metals:
IE My lead may go 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 3 2.8 1.2 etc depending on the DRAIN and sample MILES. My Iron almost always increases with miles.
My nickel will do something like 0.0 0.0 0.0 --->0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.8 etc. Chromium in the same OCI may do: 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2, Tin in the same sample may do 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.3 or 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4

The main thing is to look and see FLAT trends or trends that decline. Look for numbers that are in the same range at the same miles. Compare those in this engine and see where they fall.

If this was from a higher OCI to a lower one here, that could explain Iron being lower and Lead going up. When Lead JUMPS so do in most cases ALL other metals. It is still high for the PPM per 1000 miles though, but IMO Iron is more of the metal that tracks with miles... Fuel additives and other factors can raise the lead.

 

[medic]

I am concerned about the lead too. These engines (in good condition) typically show little to no lead in a 3000 mile interval. This is even true with 5w-20's (which blows the "too thin" theory out of the water). While I doubt this is going to lead to premature failure, I would keep an eye on it, Maybe try a differnt brand in a 5w-20 or 30.

Overall, for a cheap oil everything looks pretty good. Silicon is also slightly elevated.

 

[Alan]

Like the man said in Robocop after Clarence Boddicker handed that huge rifle/launcher then blew some crap up:

"I LIKE IT!"